From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin v. Smith

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 24, 1923
214 P. 705 (Okla. 1923)

Opinion

No. 13884

Opinion Filed April 24, 1923.

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error — Failure to Perfect Case-Made in Time Allowed — Dismissal.

Where plaintiff in error fails to make and serve his case-made within the time allowed by statute, or within the time as extended by the court, the same is a nullity, and on motion the appeal will be dismissed.

Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge.

Action between Herbert E. Emith and Susanna Franklin and others. From the judgment, the latter bring error, Dismissed.

Frank F. Lamb, for plaintiffs in error.

Herbert E. Smith, for defendant in error.


On the 22nd day of April, 1922, motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiffs in error appealed.

After various orders extending the time in which to serve case-made, a final and last order of extension was made by the trial judge on the 25th day of September, 1922, extending the time to October 15, 1922. On the 17th day of October, 1922, case-made was served, which was two days after the time had expired in which service could be made.

In the case of Harrison v. Reed et al., 81 Okla. 149, 197 P. 159, this court stated in syllabus, paragraph 2, as follows:

"Where plaintiff in error fails to make and serve his case-made within the time allowed by statute, or within the time as extended by the court, the same is a nullity and on motion the appeal will be dismissed."

This is decisive of the question involved in the motion to dismiss.

The appeal in this case must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.


Summaries of

Franklin v. Smith

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 24, 1923
214 P. 705 (Okla. 1923)
Case details for

Franklin v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:FRANKLIN et al. v. SMITH

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Apr 24, 1923

Citations

214 P. 705 (Okla. 1923)
214 P. 705

Citing Cases

Franklin v. Smith

This appeal was taken from an, order of the district court denying plaintiffs in error a new trial upon their…